GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two common questions have been raised in these three writ petitions (Civil Writs 299, 300 and 301 of 1965) which are, therefore, disposed of together by this judgment. The first point pressed by Mr. Daljit Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner in each of these cases, is that the authorities under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, have erred in holding that the transfers referred to in the respective writ petitions were effected after August 21, 1956, and that in fact these transfers had been effected by means of a deed of partition before that date and even reports about the transfer had been entered in the Roznamcha with the Patwari and Nehri Mamla had been paid by the transferees before August 21, 1956, but the decision had gone against the petitioners merely because the Roznamcha of the Patwari had been lost. Whatever may be the reason for the decision against the petitioners on this point, it is clear that a finding of fact has been recorded by the authorities under the Act in this respect with which I do not find it possible to interfere in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The second and the only other contention, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in each case, is that evaluation of the holdings of the petitioners should have been made in accordance with the provisions of section 32-NN of the Act as amended by Punjab Act 16 of 1962, as if the evaluation was being made on the 30th October, 1956, that is, the date of commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956. In reply to this specific allegation made in paragraph 11 of the writ petitions, the State has averred in the corresponding paragraph of its return that "section 32-NN is not applicable to the case". The learned Advocate-General has not been able to explain how and why section 32-NN is not applicable to these cases and would indeed be not applicable to any case of evaluation. Section 32-NN provides the date in respect of which the value of the original holding of a landowner has to be fixed in terms of standard acres. In three cases specified in the section the evaluation has to be made as on the date of coming into force of the above said 1956 Act. The section is silent as to other cases. This appears to mean that in cases of acquisition of holding by a landowner subsequent to October 30, 1956, otherwise than by way of inheritance, bequest or gift, the evaluation would be as on the date of such acquisition. Section 32-NN was introduced into the principal Act by section 10 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1962. Sub-section (2) of section 1 of the said 1962 Act provides that section 10, besides some other sections, would be deemed to have come into force on the 30th day of October 1956. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court for interpreting deeming provisions in State of Bombay v. Pandurang, 1953 AIR(SC) 244 the provisions of section 32-NN are deemed to have been on the statute book as a part of the principal Act on the 30th of October 1956 itself. The orders of evaluation in the case of these petitioners were all made subsequent to that date. Even otherwise the language of the section shows that it has been enacted only "for the removal of doubts" and its provisions are deemed to have been the guiding principle even before the section was inserted. I, therefore, hold that the defence of the respondents to the effect that section 32-NN of the Act is not applicable to the case of the petitioners is erroneous and that the said provision applies to these cases.

(3.) What remains to be considered is as to what is the effect of application of the above-said section to the case of the petitioners. This would depend upon the fact whether the petitioners owned the lands in question immediately before the commencement of the 1956 Act or whether they acquired the same, after the commencement of the said Act by inheritance, bequest, gift or otherwise. The petitioners have failed to place on the record any material to enable me to give any finding in this respect. Even the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner have not been produced in either of these cases. The Financial Commissioner in his order, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 'A' to Civil Writ 30o of 1965, has merely, after dealing with the argument regarding the vires of the Act, contented himself by saying, as regards the other points that those have been "adequately dealt with by the learned Commissioner". In the absence of the requisite data being available either in the writ petitions or in any of the orders placed before me, it is impossible for me to pronounce on the correctness of the claim as regards the evaluation of their original holdings in terms of standard acres having not been properly done. It would, however, be open to the petitioners to move the Collector concerned for evaluating the lands in accordance with the provisions of section 32-NN of the Act, if the petitioners feel that the evaluation has been made on any other basis.